Union is bigger and has more money. This has always been the case.

Jones is paid handsomely to write about the sport 'he loves'.

Yet for decades he writes sneery, nasty & bile filled articles about RL. Our game is an itch that poor old Jones cannot scratch. Our existence irritates the hell out of Jones and his like. RL will not go away, it will not lie down.

Our game will out live Jones, poor boke.

He'll be fertilising the grass while the great game marches on.

114 years this year...

How old is the moron Jones?

Bigger and more money? Bull. More exposure and more misinformation is closer to the point.

How many 90,000+ crowds has union had in London?

Rugby league has had many...

See - we can marginalise as well.

And where would the money go if we sold out stadiums for all internationals, you can bet the SL clubs would be wanting 'fees' for their players involved. RL does not have a good track record at sharing the spoils (look at the SL money, which could have benefitted all clubs) with the top clubs having that greed factor and a couldn't care less attitude towards the lower clubs.

All too true sadly.

Having read through the good points made in this thread I wonder what people think the crowd would be if the RFL announced a Great Britain V Australia 3 match test series next autumn wiith the 1st match at, say the millenium stadium, 2nd at Elland Road and 3rd at Man City.

I reckon the crowds would be massive as the hunger to get a Great Britain side back playing in an ashes series is huge.

When it comes to RL Stephen Jones knows about enough to fill the back of a postage stamp folded in half, he's not even particularly highly rated by many RU fans, and he is actually supposed to know about that. He takes a couple of cheap shots that might amuse some of his core readership, fair enough, it's not as if he's actually going spend the time understanding the challenges RL faces in any depth, it's not his job, besides he's just filling some column inches and anybody whose seen some of the RU premiership games this season will know it's probably better than writing about that.

Too true, my payment would be winging its way for all three the day they were announced. Cannot get the same motivation for England v Wales I'm afraid.

GB are effectively England though...why kid yourself otherwise? When we have a few Welsh (ie not parental) or Irish or Scottish wanting to play, it might be an issue but apart from Brian Carney, every GB player has been English for ages, so what's the issue in the name?

FFS, they could be called GB this year and still have the same players!

I think its more down to playing for the ashes than which players are playing

Well they never played for that every year, so what about the intervening years? FWIW I think they should stick with the 4 year cycle for the Ashes but they played many of these series as [iEngland[/i in the past too...so what's the big deal really?

AFAIK the Ashes have never been contested by England.

GB was only invented in 1954 wasn't it? Were England v Australia series before that not for the Ashes?

Quote: tb "GB was only invented in 1954 wasn't it? Were England v Australia series before that not for the Ashes?'" They've had a variety of names, Lions, Northern Union etc, but England wasn't one of them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ashes_(rugby_league)

Quote: tb "GB was only invented in 1954 wasn't it? Were England v Australia series before that not for the Ashes?'" They've had a variety of names, Lions, Northern Union etc, but England wasn't one of them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ashes_(rugby_league)